US judge rejects auto parts maker's challenge to NLRB structure
By Daniel Wiessner
Sept 9 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Detroit on Monday said an auto parts manufacturer is likely to lose its lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board and refused to block the board's administrative case against the company from moving forward.
U.S. District Judge Laurie Michelson ruled that U.S. Supreme Court precedent from nearly a century ago foreclosed Yapp USA Automotive System's claims that the board's administrative law judges and its five members are improperly shielded from at-will removal by the president.
Michelson, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, also said the board's ability to order employers to compensate workers subjected to illegal labor practices does not violate the right to a jury trial granted by the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Michelson denied Yapp's motion to block a board case from moving forward in which the company is accused of firing a union supporter and engaging in other unlawful conduct in the time leading up to a 2023 union election at its factory in Romulus, Michigan.
An NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment.
A lawyer for Tennessee-based Yapp did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shortly after Michelson issued her ruling, the company filed a notice of appeal and asked the judge to stay the board's administrative case pending the outcome of the appeal.
At least 20 other companies, including Elon Musk's rocket maker SpaceX, Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joe's and Macy's, are challenging the NLRB's structure or its enforcement powers in pending lawsuits and administrative cases.
Michelson's ruling creates a split with two judges in Texas who in July said there was merit to similar claims against the NLRB brought by SpaceX and pipeline operator Energy Transfer.
Those judges, who are both appointees of Republican former President Donald Trump, said they were bound by a 2022 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that said SEC administrative judges were unconstitutionally insulated from removal. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Jarkesy ruling on other grounds in June and did not reach the issue of restrictions on removal.
But the Ohio-based 6th Circuit, which covers Michigan, in a separate 2022 case upheld removal protections for administrative judges with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Michelson on Monday said that the ruling made clear that administrative judges can be shielded from at-will removal if they only make non-final recommendations to agencies rather than issuing final, binding decisions.
"NLRB ALJs fit comfortably within that description," she wrote.
Michelson also cited a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that said removal restrictions for members of the Federal Trade Commission were constitutional. The Supreme Court is currently considering a petition asking it to overrule Humphrey's Executor in a case involving the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The case is Yapp USA Automotive Systems v. NLRB, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 2:24-cv-12173.
For Yapp: R. Michael Azzi of Warner Norcross & Judd
For the NLRB: Michael Dale
Read more:
Amazon challenges US labor board's structure in lawsuit over union election
NLRB, Macy's duel over US Supreme Court ruling's impact on agency powers
US judge unlikely to block NLRB case pending challenge to agency's powers
SpaceX wins block on US labor board case over severance agreements
US judge blocks NLRB case against energy firm challenging agency's structure
NLRB's Abruzzo hits back at 'low-road' companies challenging agency's structure
SEC in-house judges violate right to jury trial, appeals court rules
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
